Once Reagan was President, he found himself at odds with the latest Sen. Kennedy. Reagan ideas such as deploying intermediate-range nuclear forces (INFs) in Western Europe and the Strategic Defense Initiative infuriated Ted Kennedy, who, according to a highly sensitive KGB document discovered by reporter Tim Sebastian of the London Times (which ran an article on the document Feb. 2, 1992), was motivated to do something quite unusual:

On May 14, 1983, KGB head Viktor Chebrikov sent a message of “Special Importance” with the highest classification to General Secretary Yuri Andropov. The subject head to the letter read: “Regarding Senator Kennedy’s request to the General Secretary of the Communist Party Y. V. Andropov.” According to Chebrikov, Sen. Kennedy was “very troubled” by the state of U.S.-Soviet relations. Kennedy believed that the main reason for the dangerous situation was “Reagan’s belligerence” and particularly his INF plan. “According to Kennedy,” reported Chebrikov, “the current threat is due to the President’s refusal to engage any modification to his politics.”

The fourth and fifth paragraphs of Chebrikov’s memo held out hope that Reagan’s 1984 re-election bid could be thwarted. But where was the President vulnerable? Chebrikov stated that Kennedy had provided a possible answer. “The only real threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations,” wrote Chebrikov. “These issues, according to the senator [Kennedy], will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.” According to Chebrikov, Kennedy lamented that Reagan was good at “propaganda,” whereas statements from Soviet officials were quoted “out of context” or “whimsically discounted.”

It goes on to say how Kennedy tried to hamper Reagan’s cold war efforts.

He is responsible for some of the worst legislation in US history. Just about every extreme statist law has his name or stamp on it. He was an unwavering ideologue and was very vicious when he wanted to be. His efforts to kill Robert Bork’s supreme court nomination are a classic example. Here is the speech he gave. Disgraceful.

Robert Bork’s America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens’ doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government, and the doors of the federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is often the only protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy.

The senate is better off without him. It’s too bad he couldn’t have just retired, but he was one of those fanatics who refused to go until he was called away.

UPDATE: I should point out one of the good things he did, he’s responsible for some good legislation. One of which is the Freedom of Information Act and later adding the Sunshine Clause that says documents should be declassified after a certain time unless the government can prove they should not be. Those are things worth thanking him for. However, as Henry Rollins points out, he got away with murder.

Maybe when the Democrats get kicked to the curb next year, some rational health cares will get sent up. Not that I am expecting any. These politicians really need to be schooled on what their job really is. I think some of them are getting the message now.

I’ve always found it annoying when Europeans, who often have never been here and get all their information on us from the TV, decide to pass judgment on us from their high horse. Here’s a recent example:

When we Europeans – the British included – contemplate the battles President Obama must fight to reform the US health system, our first response tends to be disbelief. How can it be that so obvious a social good as universal health insurance, so humane a solution to common vulnerability, is not sewn deep into the fabric of the United States? How can one of the biggest, richest and most advanced countries in the world tolerate a situation where, at any one time, one in six of the population has to pay for their treatment item by item, or resort to hospital casualty wards?

The second response, as automatic as the first, is to blame heartless and ignorant Republicans. To Europeans, a universal health system is so basic to a civilised society that only the loony right could possibly oppose it: the people who cling to their guns, picket abortion clinics (when they are not trying to shoot the abortionists) and block funding for birth control in the third world. All right, we are saying to ourselves, there are Americans who think like this, but they are out on an ideological limb.

Then she goes on to say that “The US tolerates more inequality, deprivation and suffering than is acceptable here”. Yeah, what a crock.

I have lived over there and inequality is much more rampant in Europe. Why else do they have these segregated ghettos and “no go” areas? Why would rampant mobs of minority youth go on these crime sprees? Because they’re so happy living in a socialist paradise?

We have medical mishaps in the US, also. But then, we also have state hospitals that have to take in uninsured and those places are over worked, understaffed just like all hospitals will be under Obamacare. Which is why Americans don’t want it. Not because we’re “mean”.

“Universal health care” isn’t. People are denied it based on the prejudices of bureaucrats. If you’re too old, fat, a smoker, whatever, they have excuses why they cut people off. The real reason is the cost of running these massive entitlement bureaucracies eventually bankrupts them, and in the process you have rationing of care. Which is pretty damn “mean”.

Right now the Brits are all defensive because we’ve been using the NHS as an example of how bad Universal Health Care can be when a government runs it. Naturally defenders come out of the woodwork because who likes to admit they are being ripped off? Some young people are deluded about it because they have not had to use it that much. Wait until they have to.

We Americans don’t want to be stuck with such a failing system. No thanks.

Now, as much as I like pounding on the Obama administration, which is doing a whole lot of bad things and trashing our economy in the process. But, the fact is the problems were started long before Obama and the Democrat congress. The fact is both parties are responsible. Neither could have done it without the other. The votes weren’t there in most Congresses for one party to do it until this congress.

The Democrats supported Bush’s war spending, Republicans supported some of Clinton’s plans. We have all these RINOS who still talk about working with Democrats on the Healthcare mess.

The simple fact is pork and earmarks are a problem that only seems to be getting worse and they are not listening to us anymore.

We need to clean house in 2010. All the spenders and ideologues need to go. We need a fresh start,

Start looking for fresh faces, independents, libertarians, whoever seems sane and willing to listen. It’s time for a purge of the old and the bought and paid for.

Those who survive the purge need to do that with a fear of the voter. They need to know whos boss.

I have believed since the mid 90s that comics will fine new life and success on the internet. It’s just taken a lot longer than I expected, but it seems to be starting to happen according to this article.

The business model of teh internet is still working itself out for publishing but I really think it will make things a lot more fair for everyone and less costly to consumers.